Site Albums, should everyone have one?

[sirch]

I just noticed that if a member of this site has a album in the Gallery section the when you click on their user name there is a Photos link in the pop-up that takes you to the Album, at least I think that's how it works.Anyway I was thinking that it might be a good idea to encourage more people to have an Album on the site as an example of their work. Recently I have been involved in a few discussions on here where I have wondered what another commenter's personal style was like.

Having found the feature I think I am going to set one up. Obviously no compulsion but it may help understand where someone is coming from photographically. What do you think?

 

[Pookeyhead]

If they have a gallery on here, you can just click on their name, and then photos to see what they have uploaded to the gallery.

(Edit). Sorry... Didn't read the thread properly... Lol. Just woke up.


Most have albums elsewhere I suppose as sites like Flickr etc are better equipped to share work. They probably can't be bothered to upload to here as well as elsewhere.

 

[sirch]

That's what I was getting at, although judging by the massive response to this thread I guess there is no interest. My point was that it was a feature that does not seem to be very well know or used very much and it might be helpful in various debates to see what people's preferred photographic genre and style is.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well... Some of the more argumentative types would have to then demonstrate how crap they a really are.

 

[sirch]

Most have albums elsewhere I suppose as sites like Flickr etc are better equipped to share work. They probably can't be bothered to upload to here as well as elsewhere.

I agree but putting up half-a-dozen representative images on here as an easy to access example of personal style is not too onerous. Digging out someone's flickr account if not linked in, say, their signature is much more effort

 

[Pookeyhead]

If people don't post anything on here or online, it's Normally because they don't really take anything worth posting.

 

[Jayst84]

Well... Some of the more argumentative types would have to then demonstrate how crap they a really are.

Mmm, it would also encourage that ridiculous argument that in order to have a valid opinion on an image, you must have a portfolio of similar images that you've created yourself.

 

[J Veitch]

Well I haven't used flickr in a long time and have been thinking about image hosting. I often use Google at the moment to share with friends. So I do actually use the albums here if I want to post an image.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Mmm, it would also encourage that ridiculous argument that in order to have a valid opinion on an image, you must have a portfolio of similar images that you've created yourself.

It is a perfectly valid argument. If it wasn't, why not just go into the street and get the opinion of the first random person you see? For instance, if someone bangs on about composition in a documentary shot when it's clearly not an issue or adding any worth to the photo, and see that their portfolio is full of prescriptive camera club stuff, you can discount their opinion as not being particularly valid as they clearly know nothing about documentary photography.

For example,,,, you shoot weddings and events... It seems to be what you do, so why should I listen to any advice you have to give on documentary or fine art? You've not proven yourself in those fields.

 

[Jayst84]

It is a perfectly valid argument. If it wasn't, why not just go into the street and get the opinion of the first random person you see?

You don't have to be actively involved in shooting/creating/doing something to have valid opinions on it. The obvious go-to is art critics, who don't often have portfolios of great art they've created. Likewise literary critics, etc., etc.

For example,,,, you ahoot weddings and events... It seems to be what you do, so why should I listen to any advice you have to give on documentary or fine art? You've not proven yourself in those fields.

I do shoot documentary and a bit of art stuff as well. I don't have it online because I don't have any reason for it to be. That's not to say I'm any good in either field, or that I have any opinions worth listening to. But who knows what people are knowledgable about? I wouldn't want to dismiss somebody just because they don't have a website handy filled with a certain kind of work.

 

[Wee man]

Most experts in child birth tend to be men and we seem to be happy to trust our most precious people to them even though they have never done childbirth!
Just a thought.

 

[Pookeyhead]

You don't have to be actively involved in shooting/creating/doing something to have valid opinions on it. The obvious go-to is art critics, who don't often have portfolios of great art they've created. Likewise literary critics, etc., etc.

Not to have an opinion on it, no. However, whether you should listen to that opinion should be based on the qualifications of the person offering it. if you wanted an opinion on a fashion shot, who's opinion would you value the most - Martin Parr's or Tim Walker's?

As for art critics... What makes art art, is NOT necessarily th etechnical and formal values of the work at all, but the underlying principles and meanings... Relationships and cultural relevance. While art critics may not necessarily MAKE art (although many will), They're usually highly educated in the field.

I do shoot documentary and a bit of art stuff as well. I don't have it online because I don't have any reason for it to be. That's not to say I'm any good in either field, or that I have any opinions worth listening to. But who knows what people are knowledgable about? I wouldn't want to dismiss somebody just because they don't have a website handy filled with a certain kind of work.

You can't just accept everyone's crit because they MAY be knowledgeable. You should actively find out if the person critiquing your work is qualified to do so or not, and then you can decide who's crit from the wide range you will receive is actually worth listening to. Unfortunately, most people just want praise and as a result will listen to the crit they like the most, which is why I rarely give it on here, as most people don't actually want it,

Certain types of crit though can be had from anyone, and unfortunately, that is the type you'll mainly get on here - it's not sharp.... It's under exposed.... Sure, anyone can give that crit, but then again, it amazes me that other people need to point out that an image is not sharp.... I mean, surely the photographer themselves can see whether it is sharp or not.

Anything beyond that, I'm sorry, I disagree strongly with you. Some people are just more qualified to give cri than others. There are people on here who's crit I summararily dismiss because they've already demonstrated a lack of knowledge and skill elsewhere, or have nothing to demonstrate they know what they're talking about - either work, or academic qualifications. All they can offer me whether they like it or not, and that is the most useless crit in the world.

 

[juggler]

Not to have an opinion on it, no. However, whether you should listen to that opinion should be based on the qualifications of the person offering it. if you wanted an opinion on a fashion shot, who's opinion would you value the most - Martin Parr's or Tim Walker's?

As for art critics... What makes art art, is NOT necessarily th etechnical and formal values of the work at all, but the underlying principles and meanings... Relationships and cultural relevance. While art critics may not MAKE art. They're usually highly educated in the field.





You can't just accept everyone's crit because they MAY be knowledgeable. You should actively find out if the person critiquing your work is qualified to do so or not, and then you can decide who's crit from the wide range you will receive is actually worth listening to.

Certain types of crit though can be had from anyone, and unfortunately, that is the type you'll mainly get on here - it's not sharp.... It's under exposed.... Sure, anyone can give that crit, but then again, it amazes me that other people need to point out that an image is not sharp.... I mean, surely the photographer themselves can see whether it is sharp or not.

Anything beyond that, I'm sorry, I disagree strongly with you. Some people are just more qualified to give cri than others. There are people on here who's crit I summararily dismiss because they've already demonstrated a la k of knowledge and skill elsewhere. All they can offer me whether they like it or not, and that is the most useless crit in the world.

Beat me to it, and put it more eloquently than I would have. Anyone's welcome to express an opinion on stuff I post here for critique. I weight those opinions according to their own work and the quality of the critique I get.

When the weighting gets too low I hit the ignore button. There are plenty of folk who give crap critique and never post any work here. I wonder whether they ever take any photos - or just read camera mags?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Most experts in child birth tend to be men and we seem to be happy to trust our most precious people to them even though they have never done childbirth!
Just a thought.

Because tyey are studying empirical facts and knowledge. The equivalent is giving crit based on nothing but technical details. Yes, many people can do that who don't shoot anything, but we're not dealing with a single process here, we're talking about subjective opinion as to what is good and what is not, and if you want more than whether someone likes it or not, then you need to know if that person is well versed in what actually makes a good photograph for any particular genre.

Whether someone likes it is useless unless you know why they like it.... And even then, depending on the genre, whether people like it or not may be irrelevant.


plus.... How does giving birth make you more qualified to perform a cesarean birth? It doesn't. However, if someone is telling me what I need to do in order to make an image more successful, I want advice from people who can prove they have taken successful images, otherwise what's the point? If it was simple as they say, why aren't they taking successful images?


The fact is.... Too many people in forums are armchair photographers who either don't know they're arse from their elbow, or have absolutely nothing to back up what they say in terms of work.


Think what you like but if anyone on here crit my work and has nothing of their own to demonstrate they can walk the walk as well as talk the talk I'll simply discount their opinion as nonsense.

 

[sirch]

Just stepping down a little from the high ground, a recent example that comes to mind is someone asking "which camera mode" which as one might exepct, elicited at least one of each of the standard options on the dial plus a few more complex approaches. If I said I shoot birds in flight in Av with manual focus, you might want to see the result before adopting my recommendations.

On the subject of critics, I think it was Anton Chekhov who described them as the flies that follow the cart horse, but my original thought wasn't really about criticism but was in line with the points made by David and Simon above, i.e. more just about where someone was coming from when deciding how much weight to give their opinion.

I was just struck by the ease (and perhaps that is why people shy away from it) and usefulness by which a sample portfolio can be accessed if people bother to set one up.

 

[juggler]

Just stepping down a little from the high ground, a recent example that comes to mind is someone asking "which camera mode" which as one might exepct, elicited at least one of each of the standard options on the dial plus a few more complex approaches. If I said I shoot birds in flight in Av with manual focus, you might want to see the result before adopting my recommendations.

On the subject of critics, I think it was Anton Chekhov who described them as the flies that follow the cart horse, but my original thought wasn't really about criticism but was in line with the points made by David and Simon above, i.e. more just about where someone was coming from when deciding how much weight to give their opinion.

I was just struck by the ease (and perhaps that is why people shy away from it) and usefulness by which a sample portfolio can be accessed if people bother to set one up.

I just have links to my stuff in my signature; then I don't even need to upload here.

 

[seaodyssey]

Maybe Critism is too strong a word to use. We should other opinions on photos. We are all here to learn to one extent or another. I see lots of photos on here I don'y care about or like so I dont offer anything about them.
When I see someone is trying to learn, I will other an opinion about options which may or may not help the poster, mainly about moving around the scene to bet better angles, compostion and exlude things. I also learn by looking at the photo and thinking about what I might do (but often I don't) which means I will think more before taking my own photos.


With regards to people asking about what camera and what settings to use, it is a difficult one as they are hoping for some magic settings to use to get great photos from the camera they spent lots of money on. They just need to be treated with respect and info given if you think it will help them.

BTW I am still learning lots about photography from this site and I hope to continue to do so.

Pete

 

[Pookeyhead]

Maybe Critism is too strong a word to use.

The word we've all been using is critique, not criticism. There's a difference.A small one, but important one. One implies negativity (criticism) and one implies being critical (critique). There's nothing wrong with being critical. What is terrible is telling people whether you like it, or dislike it, and not saying why. Then your opinions are useless.

When I see someone is trying to learn, I will other an opinion about options which may or may not help the poster, mainly about moving around the scene to bet better angles, compostion and exlude things.

So that's critique then That's fine, but how could another beginner know if their work is being critiqued by another beginner? I think it's important that they can make that distinction. After all, another beginner may just take your opinion at face value and act upon it, and let's be honest.... if you're a beginner yourself how confident are you about your own advice?

This is why opinions are useless in crit. You're entitled to an opinion on the work, and your entitled to give that opinion, but someone less confident, or a beginner themselves will not be able to separate the meaningful advice from the crap.

There's a prevailing opinion in here that all advice is equally valid. Where's thins idea coming from? It only seems to be internet forums that think like this, particularly this one. Would you accept medical advice from anyone? Financial advice? No... you'd check the credentials of the person giving that advice, or at least assume someone else has on your behalf. I've seen people arrive on here as beginners, and within a week they're giving crit left right and centre. Now.. before you all jump down my throat, I don't think that's a BAD thing either, because learning to give useful crit is actually a great way to learn yourself. All some of us are saying, is that the more experienced among us can spot the armchair pundits a mile off, but not everyone else can, so it would be great to see the work of those giving critique on our own work. After all, if you're receiving crit from someone who's work is clearly rubbish, we can chose to ignore it, or at least pick out the useful bits from the rubbish.

Some advice, such as exposure, and technical things can be given by anyone with a bit of technical knowledge, sure, but that's often the least useful crit. The subjective stuff like composition, content etc, then that requires a good working knowledge of the genre you're critiquing. After all, if your sum total of knowledge of from Practical Photography and your local camera club, then that's gonna show in your work, and if I can see your work, I can then make a judgement on how you think photographically, and therefore whether your opinion on it is relevant or not.



My advice still stands: Look at someone's work before accepting their crit at face value. They may be rubbish - or at least never produce any work of the type you do, and therefore almost certainly have no experience in that genre.

[edit]

If you receive technical crit on lighting, or processing, then how good is that person's lighting or processing? If you're receiving crit on a fashion shoot, then how good is that person's fashion work? If you receive crit on portrait work, how good is their portrait work? etc etc. If I received crit on my photoshop editing for example, and the person critting my work is clearly crap at it themselves, then surely their advice is probably crap too.

 

[john.margetts]

The word we've all been using is critique, not criticism. There's a difference.A small one, but important one. One implies negativity (criticism) and one implies being critical (critique). There's nothing wrong with being critical. What is terrible is telling people whether you like it, or dislike it, and not saying why. Then your opinions are useless.

The correct term is 'criticism'. 'Critique' is a noun for the end result. It's use as the verb is relatively modern and will soon go the same way as criticism has when people only want nice things to be said.

 

[sirch]

The correct term is 'criticism'. 'Critique' is a noun for the end result. It's use as the verb is relatively modern and will soon go the same way as criticism has when people only want nice things to be said.

FFS could this get any further off topic. Start your own dictionary definitions thread

 

[StephenM]

I hope that this isn't off topic...

David's posts have made me begin to rethink my positon on critique. I've believed for some years that critique should be judged on its own merits, rather than looking at the work of the person offering it and then deciding whether to bother reading the critique (or at least probably ignore it). I take David's point that a beginner wouldn't be able to sift the good from the bad, and needs to be able to see the work produced by the critiquer (is that really a word!). At least, that's the way I've understood it.

That's fine as far it goes, but what if the person looks at the work and thinks that it's rubbish? I'm sure that there are many who would dismiss the opinions of Diane Arbus, William Egglestone and Andreas Gursky (to name three I'm fairly confident would get a hostile viewing). Doesn't the beginner have to have a prior knowledge of what is good and bad - or at least be able to distinguish the work of someone with a degree of artistic ability from the chocolate box sunsets?

I don't have a gallery and have never had any particular urge to create one; perhaps I am afraid of hostile reviews. I'm certainly well aware that my work isn't cutting edge or the way the art world has moved.

 

[Fuji Dave]

If you don`t mind my view, here goes. I left one site once because one person kept saying my bird shots were terrible, so I asked him How can I do better, his answer was I don`t know as not into snapping garden birds. I am not a fantastic photographer and have never said so on sites I use, but I would never be that rude. I do like to try my best when I take photos and then edit them, if I take a photo of say Brighton West pier, and I saw a photo on here with one, then I would try to help and give friendly advice if the person asked for it. One of my mates even says, how can I like all sorts of photography and Not have a favourite subject, I said Well that`s just me. Hope I did not bore you with this. One more thing that gets up my nose is, one year I was at the airshow when some bloke said his camera was better than mine so I knew nothing on photography too, had a laugh when he turned to walk off and he fell over.

 

[sirch]

My reasons for starting this thread were much more prosaic and only a little related crit(ique)(ism)(ics). Suppose I post a photo like the one below and you say that “it’s not for you” Do I take that as representing the opinions of the masses and that it is photographically a bad concept or do I decide that maybe you haven’t taken the time to understand my intent. Having a gallery and a “Photos” link in your profile is a quick way of me understanding where you are coming from. Similarly if you offer advice on off camera flash but your portfolio is only landscape shots then again I may decide that your view may be not be the best informed.


Erratic Movement

 

[StephenM]

I suppose I'd say that a comment like "it isn't my thing" told you more about the commenter than the photograph. Even if they told you why, it would still be more in the way of personal information about the commenter. If they'd said "I think it would be better if... " then it would be more reasonable. And if before that, they'd shown that they did understand what you were trying to achieve so much the better.

If I commented on the above "Ah, you've used a rock to create a strong foreground interest, and you've positioned the sky on a third. Both show excellent understanding of composition, but you should use a tripod or a shorter exposure because of the camera shake" I would hope you'd form a poor opinion of my abilities and dismiss the critique.

Possibly I'm just saying that I hope in many cases it's obvious who to ignore.

 

[Fuji Dave]

I am know good at words some times, I have never tried a shot like that before but I do like it. Reason, it looks like you were in a rain storm or like snow plus I like how the front of the big stone is in and out of focus. I will have a look at the gallery and how to set up for some photos too.

 

[ancient_mariner]

When I first joined I looked in a couple of individual galleries, but TBH it wasn't rewarding and I didn't bother after that. I don't have a gallery at least partly for that reason.

Dictionary definitions aside, critique is generally taken as meaning constructive criticism, and that's what I look for when first assessing comments. Rudeness, when accompanying by potentially useful comments, tends to neutralise the value of comments even from the most insightful of participants. Stating that something 'isn't their thing' as a preface to critique does not invalidate subsequent thoughts because the commenter may still have a useful or alternative perspective that was overlooked when creating the image.

 

[john.margetts]

I have never understood why people comment on things that are 'not their thing'. Sunsets are not my thing - either in real life or in pictures. When someone posts one, I pass on. I have nothing useful to say. Post a picture of an old church and I will have a lot to say.

 

[viv1969]

FFS could this get any further off topic. Start your own dictionary definitions thread

To be fair, within the confines of the critique / criticism posts, it was a valid comment; or were all the others OT too?

 

[sirch]

To be fair, within the confines of the critique / criticism posts, it was a valid comment; or were all the others OT too?

Now we are critiquing the comments? :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[viv1969]

Oh dear.

 

[Jayst84]

My reasons for starting this thread were much more prosaic and only a little related crit(ique)(ism)(ics). Suppose I post a photo like the one below and you say that “it’s not for you” Do I take that as representing the opinions of the masses and that it is photographically a bad concept or do I decide that maybe you haven’t taken the time to understand my intent. Having a gallery and a “Photos” link in your profile is a quick way of me understanding where you are coming from. Similarly if you offer advice on off camera flash but your portfolio is only landscape shots then again I may decide that your view may be not be the best informed.

Well, "it's not for me" is a fairly useless comment whomever it's coming from.

If on the other hand, someone offers a few considered comments on the merits of an image, simply dismissing them because they don't happen to have similar images linked to their TP profile would seem rather daft to me.

 

[Alastair]

Anyway I was thinking that it might be a good idea to encourage more people to have an Album on the site as an example of their work.

Completely unrelated to the ongoing criticism/critique arguments, but my personal reasons for not using the Gallery/Album system is I prefer to keep the hosting of any images I share separate from any forum I'm active on. Two main reasonings behind this, a/ it's easier when you're active on two or more forums, and b/ I've never found a forum with t's and c's that include a dispute resolution process to get your gallery removed when you decide the owner/admin/mod is a **nker. I've been "online" for over twenty years (going back as far as Monochrome for anyone that remembers it) and seen too many cases of forum acrimony and collapse to get caught out leaving anything of value where access can be denied at the whim of someone else.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It's use as the verb is relatively modern and will soon go the same way as criticism has when people only want nice things to be said.

Modern or not, it's now what it means. Languages change. Lots of words are being used as verbs recently that when I was at school were not. Being "gifted" something is now quite common too.

If things never changed, we'd all be talking like something out of a Chaucer story.

Thanks for your valid, on topic contribution to the thread.

 

[Pookeyhead]

My reasons for starting this thread were much more prosaic and only a little related crit(ique)(ism)(ics). Suppose I post a photo like the one below and you say that “it’s not for you” Do I take that as representing the opinions of the masses and that it is photographically a bad concept or do I decide that maybe you haven’t taken the time to understand my intent.

The latter most likely. If no one knows the intent, then it's hard to know if it's successful or not. Some would say "if it needs explaining then it's rubbish, as a photo should not need explanation". Most who say that will probably have a folio of camera club stuff I reckon.

The reason stuff like this rubs people up the wrong way is because they don't know how to critique it (yes.... a verb ). Can't comment on it's sharpness or focus... difficult to comment on exposure. They could mention the rock on a third, but beyond that, if they don't understand your intent they'll just usually slag it off rather than ask what your intent was. Again though, This is why a folio is useful because if the person offering the critique is just taking sunsets and pictures of their kids, then they probably aren't used to using photography in a creative context, so clearly aren't in a position to comment on it. You as the creator of the image can then chose to ignore the critique. Remember the Merfolk thread? You think I took any notice of the negative critique from those who never post anything, or just do the usual pretty picture stuff? Of course not. Why would I? They were judging images created to accompany an ethnography in the same way you'd judge entries to a camera club competition because to them, that's what good photography is about. However.... I've been a photographer all my life, professionally for 27 of those years, and I've also been on here a few years, so I know the usual anti-art crowd and their opinions. Imagine if I was a beginner? I'd have run away crying, thinking the photography was rubbish, when in fact, It just wasn't something they weren't qualified to comment upon. That work has since been published, and been exhibited in 4 shows around the country, been featured on Lens Culture, and used in several magazines and articles world wide. If I was a beginner, and listened to the commentary, I'd have deleted it. However... the main detractors of the work either had no work of their own to show, or just shot birds on twigs, so even if I was a beginner I had a chance to work out that perhaps.. just perhaps... they were not really qualified to comment on the work.

Having a gallery and a “Photos” link in your profile is a quick way of me understanding where you are coming from. Similarly if you offer advice on off camera flash but your portfolio is only landscape shots then again I may decide that your view may be not be the best informed.

Exactly.

If someone is commenting on your work, find out how qualified they are to make those judgements. This ALSO applies to positive comments BTW. Most people don't want to argue with positive comments and are more likely to just accept the praise. Don't do that either. Do you LIKE their work? If not, then they're identifying you, and YOUR work, with theirs. How does that make you feel? Is that the audience you wanted for it?

Most people just want praise though, which is why they're usually happy with a thread full of "cool shot". Probably why Flickr is so popular.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I hope that this isn't off topic...

David's posts have made me begin to rethink my positon on critique. I've believed for some years that critique should be judged on its own merits, rather than looking at the work of the person offering it and then deciding whether to bother reading the critique (or at least probably ignore it). I take David's point that a beginner wouldn't be able to sift the good from the bad, and needs to be able to see the work produced by the critiquer (is that really a word!). At least, that's the way I've understood it.

That's fine as far it goes, but what if the person looks at the work and thinks that it's rubbish? I'm sure that there are many who would dismiss the opinions of Diane Arbus, William Egglestone and Andreas Gursky (to name three I'm fairly confident would get a hostile viewing). Doesn't the beginner have to have a prior knowledge of what is good and bad - or at least be able to distinguish the work of someone with a degree of artistic ability from the chocolate box sunsets?

If that's what they want to produce, then that's fine, and there are plenty on here qualified to offer critique on such work. However, anyone who reads anything on photography rather than just use forums like this will come across Arbus, or Egglestone or Gursky at some point, and they can make up their own minds.

Being able to see the work of the person offering the critique is so you can understand their take on photography. If you feel you want to develop as a fine art photographer, or a documentary photographer, then at some point you'll have come across those names elsewhere, and perhaps already formed an opinion. However, if there was a crit thread on someone's documentary photography, then some of us probably would be suggesting such artists to take a look at, which again is a sign of someone knowing what they're talking about: Rather than just offering your opinion, actually suggesting further reading, or work of others to take a look at. However... get a good panning for your documentary work from someone who just takes sunsets, and you can perhaps assume that you're posting your work in the wrong place, or asking the wrong people. After all, if you're serious about what you do, you'll not be doing it because you want praise from your peers, you'll be doing it because that's what you do - and you'll want to know if you're doing it well, not whether you should be doing it at all.

I don't have a gallery and have never had any particular urge to create one; perhaps I am afraid of hostile reviews. I'm certainly well aware that my work isn't cutting edge or the way the art world has moved.

Why would you care? Why do you create images if not to show them.. somewhere. If you've no interest in showing them, then fine, don't.

No one's saying this should be a forum rule or anything Sometimes there's really thought provoking crit from people who post no work. On average though... it would be very helpful to see where the person's opinion originates, and be able to understand their opinions. Seeing their work would be insightful in that regard.

 

[Gremlin]

Completely unrelated to the ongoing criticism/critique arguments, but my personal reasons for not using the Gallery/Album system is I prefer to keep the hosting of any images I share separate from any forum I'm active on. Two main reasonings behind this, a/ it's easier when you're active on two or more forums, and b/ I've never found a forum with t's and c's that include a dispute resolution process to get your gallery removed when you decide the owner/admin/mod is a **nker. I've been "online" for over twenty years (going back as far as Monochrome for anyone that remembers it) and seen too many cases of forum acrimony and collapse to get caught out leaving anything of value where access can be denied at the whim of someone else.

I've been on a couple of forums where you have no control over images once loaded to a site album too, can't delete them etc..
I know it's not the case here, but hidden in the terms and conditions you gave the site owners permission to use your images
and if anyone got banned etc. their images stayed in the album.
No idea how albums work on here as I've never tried to set one up
I have a link in my signature that people can use if they want to, I don't do portraits, landscapes etc but sometimes see a stunning image that
I will reply to saying just that, but nothing more, purely because I just don't do that sort of photography

 

[Pookeyhead]

I've been on a couple of forums where you have no control over images once loaded to a site album too, can't delete them etc..
I know it's not the case here, but hidden in the terms and conditions you gave the site owners permission to use your images
and if anyone got banned etc. their images stayed in the album.
No idea how albums work on here as I;ve never tried to set one up
I have a link in my signature that p[eople can use if they want to, I don't do portaits, landscapes etc but sometimes see a stunning image that
I will reply to saying just that, but nothing more, purely because I just don't do that sort of photography

Then use Flickr... your own website... anything. It doesn't need to be a gallery in here if you ask me. I know that was the OP's suggestion, but a link in a sig is OK. Personally, I just dump stuff in the gallery in here because I can play with it, delete stuff.. move stuff around where I don't want to "tinker" with my website. Also, my website is aimed at a certain audience, whereas being an ex commercial photographer, my set of TECHNICAL skills is actually much wider than my website would suggest, so for the very purpose we're discussing in this thread, my gallery in here is probably more useful.

I reckon most people don't actually look at, or even know how to look at the gallery in here though, as I've been accused of not posting work many times, when I always have stuff in there.

 

[Gremlin]

Then use Flickr... your own website... anything. It doesn't need to be a gallery in here if you ask me. I know that was the OP's suggestion, but a link in a sig is OK. Personally, I just dump stuff in the gallery in here because I can play with it, delete stuff.. move stuff around where I don't want to "tinker" with my website.

I reckon most people don't actually look at, or even know how to look at the gallery in here though, as I've been accused of not posting work many times, when I always have stuff in there.

Ummm have you seen my signature and as stated in my post

I have a link in my signature that people can use if they want to, I don't do portraits, landscapes etc but sometimes see a stunning image that

 

[Pookeyhead]

Ummm have you seen my signature and as stated in my post

Yes.... the comment was more as a general one, not aimed at you specifically Your sig is hardly subtle... it has a huge Flickr logo and bright pink text on it

As for the last comment, then yes... nothing wrong with saying you think an image is stunning. It's nice to get positive feedback of course. A few words saying why you think it's successful may be welcomed though.

 

[Fuji Dave]

It would be ok if I could comment on photos in the gallery, but it wont let me.